doc>
US Department of State Daily Briefing #45
Wednesday, 3/25/92
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Mar, 25 19923/25/92
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, Europe,
Southeast Asia
Country: Iraq, Israel, USSR (former), Libya, Thailand, Turkey,
Iran
Subject: Military Affairs, Mideast Peace Process, Terrorism,
POW/MIA Issues, Regional/Civil Unrest, Immigration,
United Nations
12:14 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Libya: Suspects in Pan Am 103 Bombing Not Turned Over to Arab
League/Security Council Resolution/Number of Americans in Country]
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have anything. I'll be happy to
try to answer your questions.
Q Well, your suspicions about Libya apparently are
borne out. What is the game plan now for the U.S.? Have you
lined up the British and French? Are you going to move ahead
with the resolution? And is the reading here as negative as it
is from unnamed Arab diplomats that those Libyans are not going
to be produced?
MS. TUTWILER: I agree with your opening statement that
you agree with what we characterized as of yesterday. It
appears that by inviting the Arab League mission to Tripoli,
Libya raised expectations of some that Libya might finally be
prepared to comply with United Nations Security Council
Resolution 731. That apparently is not the case.
Although we do not yet have an official report from
Abdel Meguid, we have seen press reports that Libya has once
again refused to comply. Unless Libya is ready now to comply
with all the terms of Resolution 731, it is incumbent upon the
Security Council to act to adopt the specific sanctions
resolution being proposed by the United Kingdom, France, and the
United States. State sponsors of terrorism must know that the
international community will not tolerate threats to
international peace and security, and is prepared to take
concerted political action in the face of continuing Libyan
defiance of international obligations and norms of behavior.
Actual action items, Barry, right now, I do not
envision that we will be tabling this resolution today. I
wouldn't look for that to happen today. We are still actively,
as we have been -- including, as I said, yesterday -- working
with the various member nations of the Security Council on this
second resolution, which, as you know, one of the things it
contains is an air embargo.
Q I think that's the only thing we know. Is there a
general agreement on the other economic measures? Can you
provide two or three of them by way of example?
MS. TUTWILER: No, I can't at this briefing.
Q Is that because there's no agreement on them yet?
MS. TUTWILER: It's because we don't want to do this
piecemeal. We'd rather have one resolution. We took an
exception to our own rule of not discussing draft resolutions
because we believe that even though -- I can't remember the
year. What is it '81? -- there have not been valid passports to
Libya for Americans. We believe there could be as many as 500
to 1,000 there. We wanted to give them the opportunity to know
this is what we were working on in order to facilitate
themselves, if they choose, to get out.
Q Margaret, do you have any indication that any of
them have?
MS. TUTWILER: No. Again, we said we believe that's
how many are there, and I believe that we said we think they're
probably working on oil rigs or ventures, or oil wells. No, I
don't. I'm not sure we have a way of tracking that, to be
honest with you.
Q It's about a week now, I think, since you urged
them --
MS. TUTWILER: But since they don't register with us --
we don't have an Embassy -- we're just guessing at the number we
think might be there. I'm not sure we have a mechanism for
checking if they've gone.
Q Any kind of timeframe on tabling that resolution?
MS. TUTWILER: We probably have one in mind, but I'm
not going to announce one in advance. We're working very
diligently on this. I would steer you to sooner than later.
Q Do you see a situation under which the Americans
in Libya would be evacuated by the United States?
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't heard that suggested, or
anybody talking about that.
Q Can you foresee a situation that that might occur?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have a crystal ball, but that
would obviously be some type of Presidential decision -- not
mine -- and I'd just be totally freelancing with you.
Number 1, they're not supposed to, as you know, be
there. They're not there with valid American passports. We
took the effort last week to announce publicly one of the parts
of this second resolution. So I haven't heard anyone talking
along those lines, to be quite honest with you.
Q Do you even have any idea how many are there?
MS. TUTWILER: We think -- but it's a guess -- maybe as
many as 500 to a 1,000, but that is only a guess on our behalf.
Q Margaret, has the U.S. been in touch with the Arab
League very recently, like today or yesterday, to discuss the
outcome of that?
MS. TUTWILER: We said yesterday that, yes, we had been
in very close contact with them. As far as today, we have not
yet had a readout from Abdel Meguid.
Q Okay. My question was going to be whether you're
aware if there were any discussions of the other provisions of
the U.N. resolution beyond the ones requiring them to get rid of
the two suspects? That's was the question --
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know yet. We don't have the
readout.
Q Margaret, --
MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me, Ralph. Prior to this, if you
take yesterday's news and what the Libyan officials were saying,
they were not addressing themselves to anything other than what
was apparently floated of giving these two individuals to the
Arab League.
Q But the question was whether, in private
discussions, the Arab League and the Libyans have discussed
those other aspects; whether the U.S. -- whether the Arab League
is conveying the U.S. and the U.N. Security Council view that
the resolution contains more than just one provision?
MS. TUTWILER: You would probably have to ask the Arab
League about those conversations.
Q Margaret, according to one report, Qadhafi says he
is waiting for the outcome of the proceeding before the World
Court. That's one thing we have heard. Would the United States
also be waiting on anything in the World Court before moving in
the Security Council?
MS. TUTWILER: No. The two entities are not connected
in any shape, fashion, or form. The International Court of
Justice, it's my understanding, hears cases of state-to-state.
The United Nations Security Council -- the International Court
of Justice has no jurisdiction over it whatsoever, and the two
are completely and totally separate.
So, as you know, we are being represented on Thursday
-- tomorrow -- by the legal counsel here to say that we
strongly believe there is no justification even for the court
hearing this case.
Q Another subject?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes.
[Iran: Salman Rushdie Death Threat]
Q As you know, Salman Rushdie, the British author,
was in town yesterday. At a speech last night, he said that he
had scheduled a meeting with members of the House and Senate but
that meeting was abruptly cancelled yesterday under pressure
from the leadership. The pressure, his handlers said, had been
put on by the White House. Do you have anything to add to this?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware of any White House
pressure. What I am aware of, which is a routine matter, is
that the Department, on any number of visits, is contacted by
various members of Congress to ask what the Department's views
are about whatever the visit is.
Yes, indeed, members did contact this Department and
asked what our views were on this private visit of Mr. Rushdie.
The Department advised the concerned members that he, indeed,
holds a valid United States visa; that his visit here is a
private visit. We also advised that any decision to meet with
him was a decision to be made by the members and not this
Department.
We also shared information that no Administration
officials would be meeting with him while he's here on his
private visit, and all final decisions were made by the members
themselves.
Q There are a number of members who are under the
impression that there was pressure applied either by the State
Department or the White House not to hold a scheduled meeting.
What's your impression --
MS. TUTWILER: I'm aware of that impression. I have
this morning personally, because I have seen the same reports
that you've seen, asked the individuals who actually dealt with
members, and they have told me there was no such pressure
applied. They told them we, the Administration -- no one in
this Administration is meeting with him on this private visit.
Obviously, it's up to each individual member to make
these decisions, whether it's this case or another one.
I personally am not aware -- and I've talked to the
people at the most senior level who were involved in this --
that they did any such thing. I'm not going to stand here and
tell you -- in this building alone there are over 8,000
individuals; I've forgotten how many are at the White House --
that at a lower level someone could have said something. I just
can't be held accountable.
But the policy, I can be held accountable for, and I
can be held accountable at the senior levels of what the policy
was and what was articulated to the Hill. That's simply not the
case.
Q Do you have any comment on the fact that some
members of the Congress, including apparently Senator Leahy,
may, in fact, be meeting with Mr. Rushdie even as we speak?
MS. TUTWILER: That's his call, which has always been
the case, which we have always said when asked. They solicit
our views, whether it's this case or in many other cases. It's
a routine matter for members of Congress to seek the State
Department's views when "X is in town." But that is quite
different than saying that we, in this case -- maybe there have
been cases where we've said, we would suggest you not meet.
We've said what we were doing; we've said why; we gave our
views. But each member makes up their own mind.
Q Can you articulate the reason why no senior U.S.
officials are meeting with Salman Rushdie?
MS. TUTWILER: Because at this time we felt that such a
thing could and possibly might be misinterpreted.
Q By whom and in what way?
MS. TUTWILER: That it could be misinterpreted by those
individuals who, as you're well aware of, have an extreme
dislike for Mr. Rushdie. We believe, as you know, strongly in
freedom of speech. He is here. This is, as I recall, his
second private visit in six months. He was in New York
recently. Those were our views.
As you know, on the issue of whether it's right or
wrong that this death threat is on his head, we have been on the
record since Day One of strongly saying what our views are
concerning that.
The Iranians are well aware of our views, and so we
don't have any disagreement on that.
Q Well, then, who is going to misinterpret them?
Who is going to misinterpret them if they're out there like
that.
MS. TUTWILER: People could.
Q Well, in what way?
MS. TUTWILER: People could misinterpret it, it is our
view.
Q What's to be misinterpreted? You've just said
that you're on the record as opposing the death sentence.
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q And you've just said that the U.S. position on
this has been known from the beginning. So what's to be
misinterpreted by a U.S. meeting -- official meeting -- with Mr.
Rushdie?
MS. TUTWILER: I said that it could be misinterpreted.
It could be misinterpreted by very -- I won't be funny with you
-- but it could be misinterpreted by individuals who want to
misinterpret it.
Q If they already know that the U.S. opposes the
death sentence on Mr. Rushdie --
MS. TUTWILER: It might not make any difference to
them.
Q -- and stands for freedom of speech, then what is
there for them to misinterpret?
MS. TUTWILER: It could be misinterpreted. That's what
misinterpreters are all about.
Q Are you saying that people might get the wrong
impression that the United States is actually willing to stand
up and put some oomph behind those words that you've just
articulated by meeting with him?
MS. TUTWILER: No. What do you mean?
Q Are you saying that you're worried that you might
be misinterpreted as taking a stronger stance in favor of free
speech than you are, in fact, willing to take?
MS. TUTWILER: No, we are not worried about that. I'm
not aware, to be honest with you, that he has requested or asked
-- or as John said, his handlers requested or asked -- to meet
with any U.S. Government officials in the Executive Branch. I
can stand to be corrected about that, but I couldn't find any
request this morning.
Had we been asked, our view was: This is a private
visit. It's a private matter. We will not be meeting with this
gentleman.
Everybody else, we were told, when they asked us, what
is your policy, how are you going to handle this, we said how we
were going to. Bill just said that Senator Leahy is meeting
with him right now. We said, fine. I don't even know if he's
one of the ones who asked our views of this or not.
Q You're the one that opened this can of worms by
bringing up this thing --
MS. TUTWILER: No, I didn't open this.
Q -- by bringing up this thing about --
MS. TUTWILER: I wanted to avoid it.
Q -- by bring this thing up about being
misinterpreted. I think that some of us, when we heard that
phrase, wondered what exactly you were trying to say.
Are you trying to say that you don't want to stir up
angry feelings, possibly direct terrorist attacks against
Americans, draw attention to the issue? You would rather handle
it by making your usual boilerplate statement from here and hope
that nobody pays attention to it?
MS. TUTWILER: I'd rather handle it in the way that we
have chosen to handle it today, to continue to say that it is
our view of why, if we had been asked -- which I am not aware
that the Executive Branch was -- we were going to not have a
visit with this gentleman on this private visit while he's here.
Q In his speech last night, Rushdie said that one of
the reasons he wanted to meet with members of the House and
Senate was that he was trying to evoke some clear expression of
support for freedom of speech and for his right to write his
novel and to be free of a death threat in much the same way that
the British Government had done.
Is the United States planning such a statement in
support of Mr. Rushdie, and calling on Iran to free him from the
death threat?
MS. TUTWILER: The United States has consistently had
this statement. I'll be happy to repeat it for you again. I
cannot remember the first time it was made, but it is very
consistent. It's been made publicly.
The United States has repeatedly and publicly condemned
the death threats against Salman Rushdie.
Without going into the details of our exchanges, the
Iranian Government is well aware of our position. We have
called upon the Government of Iran to repeal the death threats
against Mr. Rushdie.
That is our standard policy on this subject. So I
would be very surprised, to be honest with you, if Mr. Rushdie
was not aware of that policy.
Q But, Margaret, one of the things that he asked for
was for sort of a redoubling of efforts by the United States
diplomatically to try and work the Iranians on this issue. Are
you planning to step up your efforts in that regard?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware of an effort to step up
our efforts. As you're well aware, we don't have exactly what I
would call the closest of relationships with the Iranian
Government, which, I agree with you, he is probably aware of.
It's no secret. So what does he mean by "step up?"
Q Well, the Secretary --
MS. TUTWILER: What is it specifically he's suggesting
that the United States Government do?
Q I think -- I'm guessing, but I think the --
MS. TUTWILER: I didn't hear his speech, so I don't
know.
Q -- Secretary's reputation for diplomacy is so
stellar that Mr. Rushdie might wish that the Secretary might use
it, as he has on so many other past occasions, to work the
diplomatic circles -- as you are now working up the pressure on
Libya -- to up the pressure on Iran through international
circles?
MS. TUTWILER: I'll see if there is some new
diplomatic initiative that the Department is looking at
concerning the situation with Mr. Rushdie. But I am quite
positive that we have made our views known in the past to the
Iranian Government. They're well known.
We have from this podium -- and this Administration and
others -- stated, what I have just restated today, what our
policy is. I believe that most other nations that I'm aware of,
or certainly a great deal of them, have the same view of this.
Q Well, could it be that the Administration's
preference for a low-profile policy in this case is somehow
linked to the upcoming elections to the Majles in Iran in April
in the hope of producing some more of those well-known Iranian
moderates?
MS. TUTWILER: Our policy is no different than the last
time he was here on a private visit which was -- what? -- five
or six months ago up in New York where, I believe, on that
occasion he came here to give a speech. I believe on this
occasion he is here as the guest of American University. I
believe he gave a speech, and I also believe -- correct me if
I'm wrong -- that his book is out now in paperback and that part
of this, I believe, is connected with the advance or selling --
or whatever you want to call it -- promotion of the paperback
version of this book. I could be dead wrong. I believe that's
connected with the American University visit.
Q But why the preference for a low-profile policy on
the part of the U.S. Government?
MS. TUTWILER: We're not handling this private visit,
to be honest with you, any different than we handled the one in
New York. That was a low profile -- your phrase -- visit in New
York. I can't remember, but I think that was Columbia
University, to give a speech. There's no difference.
Q As he points out, something has changed since
then. That is, the hostages have now been released, and that
was one of the conditions that we -- the United States -- said
for the possible renewal of relations with Iran. He is
suggesting now that the hostage issue is gone, freedom of the
press, freedom of speech, and the death threat on him ought to
be another condition, and I wonder whether it is?
MS. TUTWILER: I said to Johanna's question that I
would be happy to look and see if we are taking a new or
expanded look or reviewing our diplomatic initiative on this
particular subject. I just didn't ask that question this
morning.
Q Could you say explicitly whether offending Iran
was one of the reasons -- one of the possible consequences of
this misinterpretation you're concerned about?
MS. TUTWILER: I would steer you completely off of
that. That is a misinterpretation of our enunication of why we
were not going to meet with him.
Q Maybe it would be helpful to --
MS. TUTWILER: It probably would.
Q -- be more explicit about what concerns you about
misinterpretation. What consequences were you worried about?
MS. TUTWILER: I understand that. Some of you all have
spoken and addressed yourselves to that this morning, and I'm
going to leave it with, we viewed this as it could potentially,
possibly be misinterpreted by some.
Q Margaret, is the Administration afraid that some
in Iran would interpret a U.S. meeting with Salman Rushdie as
somehow associating the U.S. Government with the contents of the
book?
MS. TUTWILER: I have not heard that expressed; no.
Q And, also, can you tell us whether Rushdie has
requested either directly or indirectly U.S. Government
protection -- security protection, as he has had from the Brits?
MS. TUTWILER: He did not, nor did he on his first
visit that was several months ago to New York, which we stated
at the time -- as we do with any number of people who come to
our country -- we have a feel and have an obligation to notify
local authorities. And I have to refer all questions concerning
that to the local authorities. But, no, he has not requested
it, and we're not, you know, providing any.
Q Can you clear up one point?
MS. TUTWILER: I'll try.
Q Did Mr. Rushdie ask for a meeting with someone
from the Administration, and was he turned down?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I have any knowledge of. I
will go back and double-check that, but I'm not aware of such a
request in the Executive Branch.
Q Can you tell us whether Secretary Baker spoke --
was among the officials who spoke with members of Congress about
the question of whether to meet on this subject?
MS. TUTWILER: No, he was not.
[Thailand: US Relations and Denial Of Visa for Prime Minister]
Q Could you tell us what might be the consequences
for relations between the United States and Thailand of having a
Prime Minister, Narong Wongwan, who U.S. agencies believe to be
involved in international heroin trafficking?
MS. TUTWILER: What I can tell you is that our
relations with Thailand and the Thai people are longstanding and
close. And in this context, as you know, yesterday we welcomed
the return to constitutional processes throughout the
parliamentary elections that were held on March 22. And now
that these elections are over, Thai political parties are
forming a new government. And I'm not going to get into "what
ifs" until they, indeed, have had an opportunity to form that
government.
Q Could you tell us why the United States refused
Mr. Wongwan a visa last summer?
MS. TUTWILER: He was denied a visa in July 1991 under
Section 212a(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which
states that any alien who the consular or immigration officer
knows or has reason to believe is or has been an illicit
trafficker in any controlled substance, or is or has been a
known assister, abettor, conspirator or colluder with others in
the illicit trafficking of any such controlled substance is
excludable.
Q So what you're saying in real English is that this
guy was not allowed a visa because he was a known trafficker?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm saying that his visa was denied in
July of 1991 under the section of law I just said for the
reasons that are all enunciated as part of our law.
Q And does that section of the law provide that
known drug traffickers or those who assist them cannot get
visas?
MS. TUTWILER: Cannot get visas?
Q Yes.
MS. TUTWILER: I said he was excludable for a visa.
Q I said does that section of the law provide that
known drug traffickers cannot receive visas?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not sure -- I mean, I've answered
what this affects and how it affects our law.
Q I'm just trying to get a clear --
MS. TUTWILER: I understand what you're trying to do.
Q -- statement on what the law says.
MS. TUTWILER: I'll read it to you again.
Q No. I was just looking for it in plain English
actually. [Laughter]
MS. TUTWILER: Well, since this is legal, I think it's
safer to stay with the actual text of this section 212a(2)(C) of
our Immigration and Nationality Act.
Q That's the one that prohibits anybody associated
-- [laughter] -- with the drug trade -- is that it? -- from
entering the United States?
MS. TUTWILER: I'll be happy to read it again -- the
actual language there in the law.
Q Just checking.
MS. TUTWILER: O.K.
[Former Soviet Union: US Funds for Nuclear Arms Collection/
US Aid]
Q Margaret, on the arms destruction program
yesterday --
MS. TUTWILER: On the what?
Q The arms destruction program taken question that
was put out a couple of days ago -- somebody asked whether any
of the $400 million has been spent.
MS. TUTWILER: Right. Very little.
Q Has any of it been spent? I see your answer here,
but --
MS. TUTWILER: Right. The honest answer is very
little. And the Secretary of State had a meeting this morning
-- I think it went about 90 minutes -- with a number of relevant
senior officials in this Department. One of the subjects that
was addressed was the whole area of the $400 million that comes
under strategic, nuclear, etc., and we're working on it.
Q What?
MS. TUTWILER: As you know, we have allocated the $25
million for the science center. That comes out of the $400
million. But an honest answer is very little, if any.
Q Why is it taking so long?
MS. TUTWILER: Governments, unfortunately, move slowly,
and he is working on it. He's pushing. It's a gigantic
government, it's a gigantic interagency process, and he is
really trying, as are others.
Q Who? I mean, who's "he"? Are you talking about
high-level or --
MS. TUTWILER: The Secretary of State for this
Department.
Q Oh, O.K.
MS. TUTWILER: Other members of the President's Cabinet
are equally pushing as hard. I believe that you, hopefully,
should see something shortly. I can give you an example. I
recently -- just this week you saw the article on the possible
purchase of Plutonium 238.
It was widely reported that the State Department was
blocking this, delaying this, etc. I looked into it. No one on
the 7th Floor, which in my view -- and most people acknowledge
-- is the policy level of this particular Department, had seen
this yet. And that is not indeed what their view was.
So I'm not ducking it. I'm just being honest. It's
difficult to get things done.
Q Margaret, there seems to be a pattern here on this
-- the purchase on the arms, the purchase of the Plutonium and
aid, aid to the former Soviet Union -- a pattern in which the
United States is rather slow in responding to needs that
everybody over there and a lot of other people, including
former President Nixon, that suggested ought to go faster.
MS. TUTWILER: On some things --
Q I just wonder whether -- and some people have
suggested that the United States is dragging its feet simply
because they wish to reduce the former Soviet Union to make sure
that none of its industries can ever rise again to threaten the
United States.
MS. TUTWILER: I've read those opinions of unnamed
people who serve in this government, and I would tell you that
-- I would acknowledge to you that some things on our program --
and it is a vast, massive agenda -- have moved slowly.
I've just pointed out a meeting that took place this
morning in the political area, the humanitarian area, the
technical area, the military arms area -- I believe those are
the main ones -- legislative area. The whole nine yards. And
we're going to be doing this at least once a week, if not more
often.
The Secretary of State chaired this meeting. He has
any number of meetings with his colleagues, with the President
at the White House on these types of things, but not everything
has moved slowly.
For instance, the United States of America is the first
country, to my knowledge -- and we've checked this -- that is
located on the ground, up and running, in 11 of the former
Soviet republics. And I said yesterday we have just recognized
Georgia. We believe that we will have people on the ground in
place in Georgia by April 15.
That is by government standards lightning speed, and so
we are moving very rapidly in some areas. And I grant you in
some it is -- takes a little longer.
Q Was the meeting this morning also -- did it also
address the question of how to package aid to the former Soviet
Union on the Hill?
MS. TUTWILER: How to package -- you mean the
legislative vehicle?
Q The issue of -- yes.
MS. TUTWILER: It touched on that. There have been
separate meetings -- numbers of them -- that the Secretary has
had over the course of the last -- what? -- seven days on that.
I still don't have any answer for you except, obviously, we are
pretty much decided here at the Department on where we're going,
and he will be discussing this, obviously, with his colleagues.
He has not begun his formal consultations with the Hill
yet, and I would not envision that that would happen today.
Q Margaret, in answer to a question on Monday about
how security was being provided for overland shipments of aid --
MS. TUTWILER: Right.
Q -- in the Soviet Union, you put out a statement
saying that a number of private voluntary organizations had
signed contracts with the U.S. Government to provide security
and oversight. Can you expand on that? What does that mean?
MS. TUTWILER: Can I? No, but I can ask Rich Armitage
to. The one I'm most familiar with and they just did was CARE,
I believe, was designated by DOD -- and was it Energy? -- to
help monitor this.
Q Right. But the phrasing of the statement seemed
to indicate that these PVOs, which are helping to deliver the
aid, had somehow contracted with the U.S. Government to provide
the security. Does this mean that they've bought the services
of soldiers or some other group to provide security and
oversight? I didn't understand the statement. I'm sorry.
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I'm aware of. I'll check with
Rich [Armitage]. It's my understanding, just like on our
Provide Hope mission, as you know, we sent in special teams
ahead of those airplane landings -- special teams that were
interagency U.S. Government employees to identify where it will
be delivered, how it will be delivered. We actually went with
them while it was delivered to an orphanage or to an elderly
persons retirement home, or something.
And so my limited understanding of this -- Rich, as you
know, lives with this every day -- is that your question was a
very valid question, one that he had already identified and has
a mechanism in place to ensure that it can transit safely.
My understanding, from reading the same answer from his
shop that you did, is that we are relying or soliciting or
helping -- asking help from these private organizations. And I
believe the statement concluded by saying that if we find this
is not an effective means, then we'll cut it off and find a
better one.
So I'll see if he can either personally, you know, call
you, or if we can get a more fleshed out example of how exactly
it works.
Q Margaret, a question on the Kurds.
MS. TUTWILER: Kurds?
Q Yes. What is the U.S. position on the recent, in
the last few days, Kurdish unrest in southeast Turkey, and how
does that balance with U.S. support for Kurdish revolts during
the Gulf War? I mean, it's the same objective now as it was
then -- Kurdish autonomy.
MS. TUTWILER: I don't want to rehash old ground. As
you know, we have never said that we supported, encouraged,
etc., Kurdish revolt. That was the big debate, if you recall,
at the end of the war.
Without going into that, I can tell you what is going
on, which is in southeast Turkey demonstrators clashed with the
police during local Kurdish New Year's celebrations. PKK
terrorists attacked Turkish security forces in the region.
Press reports from the area indicate that over 50 people were
killed in various incidents.
PKK supporters in Europe have also attacked Turkish
diplomatic and commercial offices as part of their campaign to
create an independent Kurdish state in southeastern Turkey.
The United States Government condemns acts of terrorism
launched in the past week by the PKK terrorist organization in
Turkey and abroad against officials and offices of the Turkish
Government.
We welcome the steps that the Turkish Government has
taken to allow all its citizens, and specifically those of
Kurdish descent, to exercise their human and cultural rights in
the face of terrorist attacks which threaten their safety and
security.
In addition, we welcome the Turkish Government's
efforts to act with restraint in response to PKK terrorist
provocations, and we urge that every possible step be taken to
avoid the death or injury of innocent citizens.
Q Does flying air strikes on Kurdish camps fall
under that "acting with restraint"?
MS. TUTWILER: Is what?
Q Flying -- the Turks flying air strikes --
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware of an air strike. There
was an air strike this weekend?
Q This morning. It was on the wires.
MS. TUTWILER: I'm sorry. That's something I'm just --
hadn't heard about.
Q And also last week.
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware of air strikes. I'm aware
of one about two weeks ago, as I recall.
Q You commented on that one a couple of weeks ago.
MS. TUTWILER: Right. But the most recent thing -- I
haven't heard about this morning's -- was the, originally when I
came to work on Monday it was 45 or 47 people; now we think that
it may be over 50 in the weekend tragedy that has happened. I'm
just sorry I haven't heard about an air strike this morning.
[Russia: Commission on US MIAs/POWs]
Q Margaret, one question on Russia, please.
MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me?
Q On Russia. United States and Russian Commission
on MIA and POW affairs has begun a three-day meeting from today,
and do you have any connection with the POW/MIA Commission with
any U.S. aid to Russia, please?
MS. TUTWILER: To Russia?
Q Yes.
MS. TUTWILER: Do we have any connection? We have
State Department employees is my understanding. I'm getting
confused. Ralph?
Q I think the question is, is there a link between
Russian cooperation on MIAs and POWs and U.S. aid to the former
Soviet Union.
MS. TUTWILER: Thanks. No problem. I have a southern
accent. I just have a hard time.
Q You do? [Laughter]
MS. TUTWILER: Yes.
Q Why don't you ever use it at the briefing?
[Laughter]
MS. TUTWILER: I'll try. No, sir. I'm not aware of
any connection with our aid. As you know, this is something the
Secretary most recently discussed with his counterpart, the
Foreign Minister, in Brussels. It's an ongoing dialogue on our
bilateral relations with them, and they, as you point out, have
just agreed to the formation of this commission. I thought they
just left last night. You say the meeting begins today. Maybe
it does.
Q How has the State Department been involved in the
meeting, in the sense of the personnel and issues that can be
raised in that meeting?
MS. TUTWILER: We have personnel who are attending this
meeting. This is an idea that we developed with the Russians.
I just -- unfortunately, I don't know at what level or who's
heading up our team.
Q Malcolm Toon.
MS. TUTWILER: Who? You're right. Thank you. He
reminded me. And I happened to have ridden down the elevator
last night when I was leaving at 8:00 o'clock with a gentleman
who was on his way to this meeting. That's why I'm surprised he
said he had met this morning, but maybe he got there in time.
[Israel: Reported Transfer of US Patriot Technology]
Q Margaret, do you have anything on the timing of
either the IG's report or the return of the Patriot-specific
inspection team?
MS. TUTWILER: Nothing new on either one of those. No.
Q Not to leave that, you said -- would you still
characterize that delegation that's there as falling under your
rubric of going -- spending just a few days and returning --
MS. TUTWILER: Absolutely, and we said that yesterday.
I just don't know when they're coming back.
Q As far as you're concerned, "a few days" is still
operative?
MS. TUTWILER: Absolutely. Right. I had read a report
before I came down this morning on the wires that they were
coming back today. That's not true. We don't have a definite
return, but, yes, it is still our view that it will be a few
days.
Q And is it still -- having had them on the ground
there now, is it still the U.S. view that the delegation is
dealing exclusively with Patriot-related issues?
MS. TUTWILER: Absolutely.
Q Back to the Kurdish issue, you repeatedly called
the PKK as a terrorist organization, but --
MS. TUTWILER: In our view, it is.
Q But the Voice of America seems to be avoiding this
term and using every other adjective than "terorrist." Is the
VOA following a separate policy?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know, because I'm not aware of
what the VOA is saying. I'll be happy to look into it.
Q Anything new on Round 5?
MS. TUTWILER: No. We're still working the issue.
Q Do you have any comment --
MS. TUTWILER: Barry, you know.
Q "That round."
MS. TUTWILER: Instantly you knew -- Round 5.
Q You haven't heard from the delegations about
suggested dates yet -- suggested places, I mean?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, we're working -- yes, there are
lots of suggestions. There are lots of suggestions on dates,
and we're quietly working this round also, as we have the
others, in our diplomatic channels, but there are no decisions
yet.
Q What's the status of the -- if you were asked the
question about a Baker trip to the region, would your answer be
the same as it was a couple of weeks ago?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes.
Q You should have been here yesterday, Ralph.
Q Sorry. I apologize. [Laughter]
MS. TUTWILER: No problem. There's no truth to the
rumor that's floating around that the Secretary's going to the
region on April 10.
Q Margaret, have some of the Arab parties now
proposed some venues? They had not as the last round broke up.
MS. TUTWILER: As you know, we haven't -- we get asked
this repeatedly -- we haven't answered those questions, whether
there are lists or non-lists or who's submitted lists, etc., so
I'm going to steer away from that. We are working with all the
parties to try to resolve this timing and venue question.
Q But didn't you just say there had been lots of
suggestions on time and venue --
MS. TUTWILER: Sure.
Q -- which led me to think, well, maybe somebody
other than the Israelis have proposed some places.
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, on this particular meeting,
correct.
Q Like the Agriculture Department instead of the
State Department? [Laughter]
Q Wait a minute. Let me try to clear that up. The
Israelis -- you and the Israelis both said at the end of the
last round that the Israelis had made suggestions of venues.
Have any other parties to the talks made suggestions as to venue
at this point?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't believe that I said that here.
I believe that I purposely did not respond to that question,
which Barry, I believe, had asked me sometimes about, "Margaret,
isn't it true," and I believe Johanna was asking me this, that
the Israelis have indeed submitted a list, and that the Arabs
indeed have not. And I have avoided answering the question
concerning a list.
Concerning Chris' question about Round 5, are we
getting different suggestions on, you know, venue and timing,
the answer is sure, but we have on every round.
Q So you're making a technical distinction between a
list --
MS. TUTWILER: I'm making a big distinction.
Q -- and making suggestions. Is that correct?
MS. TUTWILER: Without answering the question of
whether there are or are not lists, you know that the United
States -- you know the parties have different views on how long
you would or would not continue in Washington, D.C. You know
the United States' policy is that at the appropriate time we
agree these should be moved closer to the region.
So on a total, semi-kind of hypothetical, "lists" could
be dealing with future and with the big picture, Round 5, is a
specific, possibly, potentially upcoming event, and that is what
we're dealing with on suggestions.
Q I got it. Thank you. [Laughter]
MS. TUTWILER: You got it.
Q Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 12:51 p.m.)